Bf109G-6 Question!

[stona]

yeah, you are correct but a slimmer cockpit would effectively cut down wind resistance and improve the forward motion performance - which in turn would kill maneuverability.

But one major difference in the mechanics of both the spit and the bf/me was that the Messerschmitt was more "electrically" controlled whereas the spits relied on hydraulic control or pneumatic control. This would add weight to spits.

The Bf 109 was one of the least slippery of all WW2 fighters.

The Bf 109 also had a hydraulic system for the undercarriage. Weren't the guns cocked pneumatically? I'd have to check but I'm pretty sure the MG 17 needed a pneumatic system.. I'm not sure there is any weight saving here anyway.
It was the Fw 190 that had an electric U/C retraction system and the reason that Tank himself gave for this was that it was more damage resistant, not that it was lighter.

Cheers

Steve

 

[drgondog]

The Bf 109 stickj forces at speed ARE high. We have pilots who will testify to that and they fly multiple WWII types.

The Bf 109 was NOT dogfighting at anythinbg higher than 310 - 340 mph. After that speed, it was escaping or moving into position to attack and would slow down to actually fight unless the target was unaware of the impending attack. It was very GOOD at ambush, but that is a testament to pilot training, not aircraft handling.

NOBODY wanted to Dogfight! Superior Speed was invaluable to attack or retreat - and when you didn't have an advantage in speed you wanted to capitalize on your advantages. A 109 one on one with a 51 was better in turn and climb in the 250-300 mph range... and very good at Ambush with excellent speed and superior zoom to most adversaries. A P51 was very GOOD at ambush, Ditto FW 190 ditto Spitfire, Ditto P-47, ditto F6F, etc, etc

The pilot that slowed down to attack was the next victim of the adversary he didn't see. You should have been schooled in that fundamental aspect of air combat from all the discussions you have had at POF.

 

[GrauGeist]

I might add an observation here, regarding the pilots of the Bf109...they weren't in the best of physical condition. If you'll look at their photos, these guys weren't body-builders.

They flew several missions a day, lived under stress for years and many had been wounded. In some cases several times. Look at Marseilles, he spent most of his evening hours drinking and womanizing then spent his day in the cockpit. Hartmann wasn't a giant of a man either, he earned his nickname "Bubi" because he looked like a teenager.

These are just a few of many examples.

 

[stona]

NOBODY wanted to Dogfight!

Not all fighters were "energy fighters". If you were flying a "turn fighter" like the Zero or even Spitfire you would be happy to dogfight rather than "boom and zoom". The trick was getting your opponent to play to your strengths. An experienced pilot might not but experienced pilots were not plentiful in some air forces, particularly late in the war.
Cheers
Steve

 

[drgondog]

Not all fighters were "energy fighters". If you were flying a "turn fighter" like the Zero or even Spitfire you would be happy to dogfight rather than "boom and zoom". The trick was getting your opponent to play to your strengths. An experienced pilot might not but experienced pilots were not plentiful in some air forces, particularly late in the war.
Cheers
Steve

Steve - don't you think the ability to out roll, out turn and out climb all of its adversaries in 1942, especially a P-40, P-39, Buffalo or F4F or Spit - all of which had a little level speed and much faster dive speed - was a significant advantage? From my perspective 'energy maneuverability' has dimensions of speed, acceleration, climb and dive... and not from level flight the Zero ranked very well with its adversaries 1941-1943... against All of the contemporary fighters of all nations - it just could dive with our clunkers in 1940-1943 but could convert superior climb to potential energy or attain favorable position in turn or roll to limit the options of its pursuer.

The US, in first line fighters had big engines good to great top speed and each had high wing loadings largely because of the gross weight of aluminum required to house large amounts of fuel and large engines to go fast enough to overcome drag. Boom and zoom became a watchword for "I want to survive", and better capitalize on the few advantages we Have".

Don Blakeslee's comment about the P-47C was classic when someone told him how fast a Jug could dive "Hell, I hope so because it sure can't climb." But even this example refers only to the top speed, dive speed part of energy maneuverability and the dive/zoom part was only useful if you could attack - or see an enemy fighter far enough behind you to escape - not fight.

I know you know this - I wasn't trying to lecture, just understand how you put energy maneuverability in context?

 

[Juha]

I might add an observation here, regarding the pilots of the Bf109...they weren't in the best of physical condition. If you'll look at their photos, these guys weren't body-builders.

They flew several missions a day, lived under stress for years and many had been wounded. In some cases several times. Look at Marseilles, he spent most of his evening hours drinking and womanizing then spent his day in the cockpit. Hartmann wasn't a giant of a man either, he earned his nickname "Bubi" because he looked like a teenager.

These are just a few of many examples.

Hello GrauGeist
there were slim and muscular 109 pilots. Bubi adopted the tactics used by Rossmann, who because his earlier shoulder wound used boom and zoom tactics. Of dogfighters, IMHO two of the most famous were Bär and Grislawski.

Juha

 

[drgondog]

Dave - I would also add that many were athletes and gymnasts pre-pilot school and many had pride in staying reasonably fit. The primary vices were smoking and drinking - but when they were 'fooling around' with wenches, it was all good.

In Russia and North Africa there were fewer wenches to keep them fit.. ditto RAF and US pilots but London was "OK".

I am kidding. I know my father and Billy Hovde enrolled in Art School at Cambridge.. never saw dad even doodle on a napkin so somewhat suspicious of his academic zeal. No other fighter pilots seemed to have broken the Art School scam.

 

[SHOOTER]

What's the evidence for that?
A very few senior pilots managed to avoid flying gondola equipped aircraft or had the gondolas removed. Most did not, no matter how much they disliked them. A man like Bartels (Heinrich) would be an example. I've never seen anything to support the sort of discrimination you are supposing but am open to persuasion.
Cheers
Steve

Having an "in" with that circle of Pilots during my two tours in Germany, I have to say that ALL of the people I talked to thought that the Me-109 was a great weapon in the hands of a good Pilot. To a man, all four of the men I talked to regularly preferred the single 20 MM gun through the prop hub for most if not all work. It had a better Rate of Fire, Higher MV and Massed less than the Mk-108 which was useless as far as they were all concerned. They did not even like it for shooting at four engine bombers because the trajectory was so curved, 41 M at 1000, that it was almost impossible to hit anything with it! Even as big as a B-24. They all claimed that 2-3 hits with the 20 MM was all that was required to down a four engine bomber, provided they were in the cockpit. One of the best points of the Me-109 was it's "point-ability" due to quick controls and highest angle of attack which allowed shooting from a larger angle off.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Having an "in" with that circle of Pilots during my two tours in Germany, I have to say that ALL of the people I talked to thought that the Me-109 was a great weapon in the hands of a good Pilot. To a man, all four of the men I talked to regularly preferred the single 20 MM gun through the prop hub for most if not all work. It had a better Rate of Fire, Higher MV and Massed less than the Mk-108 which was useless as far as they were all concerned. They did not even like it for shooting at four engine bombers because the trajectory was so curved, 41 M at 1000, that it was almost impossible to hit anything with it! Even as big as a B-24. They all claimed that 2-3 hits with the 20 MM was all that was required to down a four engine bomber, provided they were in the cockpit. One of the best points of the Me-109 was it's "point-ability" due to quick controls and highest angle of attack which allowed shooting from a larger angle off.

Is this mythical, fictional circle of pilots like your "former landlord who flew a Me-109K with a 30 MM Mk-103 shooting through the prop hub and two Mg-151/15s under the cowling!" ?

Modify the B-17 into night bomber/low altatude streak bomber?

 

[GregP]

Is that you Neoconshooter? Two tours in Germany?

And Bill, I KNOW nobody wanted to dogfight, but sometimes they had to do it, die, or run away. When they did, the Bf 109 was MUCH better in the 250 - 330 mph range than anything much faster. At 400 mph the controls were quite heavy, not the best place to be in a fight unless you are pointed away from the fight.

If I were trying to escape in a Bf 109, I'd go as fast as possible. If I were attempting an ambush, I'd also stay fast. If I had to dogfight, I'd want to be at 300 - 340 mph. You might want to do it differently, and that's fine unless you were my wingman. No real argument, is there?

 

[GrauGeist]

An old friend of the family (who's long since passed) was a Luftwaffe pilot from 1939 until 1945, flying the Bf109 primarily.

He prefered not to use the nose cannon because in his own words "would shake your fillings loose" and would skew the aim if fired in rapid succession.

He was not physically the largest person you've ever met and was a chain-smoker even into his later years. I do recall occasional conversations among the guys where he mentioned that they (the pilots and ground crews) were run "ragged" because of the multiple sorties they ran per day where our guys (Allied) typically ran one per day.

I sure wish I had the presence of mind to get as many stories from these guys when I was a kid, but I thought they would always be around.

 

[GregP]

Hi Neo,

Exactly what has angle of attack to do with angle off?

The turn rate is the main factor.

 

[futuredogfight]

I have read a story of a Finnish 109G-6 out climb-turning an LA 5. Also Finnish ace Kyosti Karhila flew a 109 with the under wing cannons and he stated that instead of speeding up to get into a turn fight, he would actually slow down. Sources:WW II ACE STORIES WW II ACE STORIES

 

[Garyt]

Some in here are not fond of the combat record as a measure and that is fine. What other measure should be used to determine the best combat fighter? Certainly operational losses are one measure of reliability or lack thereof. There are others and they all have a place in peacetime..

LOL, GregP. Personally, I don't think it is a method of determining whether a lane was "great" because of it. And with with the Hellcat, it was used against the late war Japanese airforce, where the opponents of the Hellcat were at a airplane qualitative disadvantage, a huge disparity in pilot training, the Japanese were outnumbered, and other issues as well. The Hellcat was certainly an effective claim - but it's incredibly stellar kill ratio would be like a high schooler beating up 5th graders and saying he had a great "kill ratio".

Personally, I look at the ME109's combat record to be a more realistic record of the planes capabilities. It had the early war period against the russians where the germans had a big advantage, but it was also in the BoB, more of an equal footing setting. And it was around through the end of WW2, where it was at a disadvantage both in plane and pilots to the allies. SO overall, it's a pretty good representation, maybe a bit tougher on the Me109 as early war was mixed but late war the scales were tripped against it.

But it SHOULD have shot more planes down than any other aircraft - it was the most produced fighter of WW2 I think, and it was there from start to finish.

Though to me, that is part of it's legacy. It was a very effective plane early war - and even by late war it was still competetive. That's a difficult thing for any aircraft to say other than the Spit, but the end of the war Me109 was still very similar to the late war Me109 - the Spit was less similar to it's early war version than the Me109.

But I'm still not going to use it's kill numbers and say it was far better than other WW2 designs

 

[Ivan1GFP]

This is going to contradict what was stated here last year, but I didn't see the discussion at the time:

The Me 109G-6 with underwing 20 mm cannon was easily more maneuverable than the P-51 Mustang!
This is from a fairly famous British test which unfortunately doesn't state which model of P-51 was tested against the captured Messerschmitt. The general performance of the captured Messerschmitt stood up quite well with the exception of maximum level speed which was the 386 mph often seen in books.

When discussing the Me 109G-6, you are really discussing a lot of different fighters. The earliest had much less engine power (I believe with a DB 605A) than late aircraft. The last of this series was pretty much the same as the G-14 and G-10 series for equipment though the cowling may have a different shape. They also had larger wooden or metal fin and rudder and possibly the Erla haube.

386 mph is pretty poor, but 425 mph isn't too bad for the late aircraft. It is strange that the G-6 designation didn't change even though the aircraft did.

- Ivan.

 

[Garyt]

This is going to contradict what was stated here last year, but I didn't see the discussion at the time:

The Me 109G-6 with underwing 20 mm cannon was easily more maneuverable than the P-51 Mustang!

If you mean turn radius, you are probably right. The mustang was certainly not the quickest turner. Would not surprise me either if the Me climbed better, all the Me109's seemd to be great climbers, the P-51 was not the best at climbing.

Not sure how it would effect roll rates though.

 

[Juha]

During the long production run of 109G-6, all with DB 605A engines but the 1.42ata boost was at last allowed, for very short period (1 or 3 mins), in late 1943, was that in Oct. Before that the max allowed boost was 1.3ata but short periods when 1.42ata was at first allowed then again barred due to engine failures. Then there were subtypes like G-6/U3 with DB 605AM engine. 109G-14 was in practice G-6 with MW50 system installed ie like G-6/U3. G-6/AS (DB 605AS engine) had the max speed of 410mph, IMHO it was the most dangerous G-6 for the Mustang

 

[Denniss]

/U3 were recons, some may have had the 605AM

 

[BiffF15]

What??

To "slow down" in a fight is to commit suicide...

The Bf109 was a fluid fighter, good at all attack formulas.

Sometimes the stuff you come up with leaves me a little baffled, Greg...seriously.

GrauGeist,

Actually Greg isn't off at all. Prior to executing a gun only attack you make one of two decisions: hit and run or turn and anchor.

If you choose the hit and run you keep your speed up to get you outside his gun (weapons) range ASAP regardless of what he does. You can always shift from hit and run to turn and anchor, however it's not without peirl. The danger lies in carrying too much energy (airspeed) into the fight and not killing him prior to overshooting (failing to control your closure).

If you choose the turn and anchor then you want more speed than he does, but not so much that you give yourself too much of a closure problem. Speed is life, but it's also a larger turn circle. Aircraft turn circles depend on their speed. The more the speed the bigger the circle, the less the smaller the circle (until you get so slow that the circle will actually get bigger again as you approach the limits of slow flight).

When dogfighting (Basic Fighter Maneuvers / BFM) you are flying your aircraft in relation to his, to a place that will allow employment of a weapon. When employing a weapon you are no longer flying BFM. BFM will get you to a weapons solution, but a weapons solution will end up giving you a BFM problem. You do one or the other, but not both at the same time. Or, you maneuver (BFM) to near his six and start shooting. When shooting your nose is in lead, and you are closing on him due to angles (and probably airspeed). If you miss, or don't kill him, once you stop shooting you have to maneuver again to be able to employ (get back to a range that allows you to shoot and hopefully deal with any moves he attempts). In most WW2 gun footage you will notice guys overshooting quite a bit (some with very close passes). If they missed they could get their a** handed to them when overshooting closely.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Koopernic]

As a child I was brought up on the myth that the Me 109 was not maneuverable and had bad handling. In reality while the Me 109 had trouble coping with the Spitfire in turning circle it compares rather well against other type. It gave plenty of pre stall buffet warning, had possibly the best spin stall behavior of any aircraft (including the Spitfire)

If a formidable fighter such as a P-51B or P-47D was involved with a Me 109 a lower altitudes (say below 15000ft) and at lower speeds (say below 300 mph) the 109 would seem to be able to outmaneuver it.

Also late models of the Me 109 such as the Me 109G10, Me 109G14AS and Me 109K4 with their larger high altitude superchargers could maneuver with equality with a P-51 at medium altitudes say 25000ft, perhaps better. We have plenty of encounter reports of Me 109 out diving and out turning allied aircraft, including outdiving the P-51D, even throughout 1944.

I'm not trying to gloss over its deficiencies, the Luftwaffe was well aware of these, and it was regarded as a disaster that the Luftwaffe needed to still depend on this aircraft mainly because of the high levels of training required in the Me 109 in regards to landing and tactics (the poor rearward vision meant Me 109 were ordered to always fly in pairs)

In general we need to look at what is "maneuverability". I could be all of the following;
1 Turning Radious
2 Turning Time, it is possible for an aircraft to have a small full power turning radious but still be out turned in turning time.
3 Roll Rate, the Fw 190 was a breakthrough in this area, effectively out turning its opponents due to being in the bank much quicker. Roll rate varies with speed, with latter aircraft having airfoils and technologies designed to reduce aileron loads: for instance friese ailerons on the Fw 190, Internal Pressure balancing of the P-51, hydralic boost on the P-38J. Some Me 109G produced by WNF and possibly Me 109K4 received spring tab ailerons to reduce aileron loads (both Me 262 and Ar 234 had these)
4 Instantaneous turn rate versus sustained turn rate without loosing height (energy)
5 climb rate, A higher climb rate means an aircraft can both escape and position itself for attack (the focus of Bearcat development)

It should also be considered that all of the above are dependent upon engine power which varies with altitude and the engine development cycle at various times. The Me 109F series was quite plausibly superior even to the Spitfire V in turning circle as a result of excellent aerodynamics and equality in engine power before a cycle of weight gain and inferior engine performance growth swung the pendulum in the favor of the spitfire.

Consider that during the Battle of Britain that Me 109E3/E4 with 1050 to 1100 hp engines were up against Spitfires with 1310hp engines due to the use of 100 octane fuel.
The widescale introduction of C3 fuel in the DB601N engine would have closed the gap: (there were two different DB601N one with 1170hp and the other with 1260hp) and this might have changed the outcome of many engagments: what appears as superior maneuverability is often more SEP specific excess power.

Consider also that The Me 109G1/G2 came into service slightly before the Spitfire IX and that this variant managed 404mph, weight growth slowed this down to 387mph for the Me 109G6 at 1.3 ata before the boost pressure was raised to 1.42 raised speed again to 397mph.

Latter MW50 injection and sometimes C3 fuel (96/125) raised boost pressure from 1.42 to 1.7, 1.75, 1.8 and 1.98 ata and power to 2000ps.

From about April 1944 Me 109 in service split into two streams:
Me 109G6AM which had a MW50 injection system and much higher low altitude speed. This was standardized as the Me 109G14A from June 1944
Me 109G6ASM which had both an enlarged supercharger and MW50 and thus both superior speed at both low and high altitude this was standardized as the Me 109G14AS from June.
We then have the following
October 1944 Me 109K4, capable of 444mph and 454mph with a narrow blade propeller and potentially 460mph with a more advanced propeller.
November 1944 Me 109G10 (essentially an Me 109K4 but without retractable tail yoke.)

Note also other minor improvements:
ERLA hood, which was a single piece canopy that offered more vision.
Galland hood, which was bullet proof glass behind the pilots seat replacing the steel plate.
Extended Tail Yoke which greatly reduced the so called landing swing that produced ground looping accidents
Tall tail with the rudder balance horn replaced by flettner "servo" tabs to reduced rudder force. The rudder horn had caused a shock wave that had limited diving mach speed.

Final version was likely to have been the Me 109K14 which had the DB605L engine and a 4 blade prop, it had a two stage supercharger and a fantastic service ceiling.

It should be considered that with the political demise of Erhard Milch, Willy Messerschmitt and to an extent even Goering himself new leaders in aviation production such as Fritz Saukel took over and these men were "production heads" who would rather produce inferior products than compromise production levels to obtain a superior product.

Consider the failure to streamline the Me 109G6 gun blisters, the failure to get the retractable tail wheel in place cost together about 10 mph at military power, certainly much more at WEP.

The problem with this 'production approach' was that more Me 109 were being produced than mature pilots to fly them. Vast numbers of Me 109 were lost during delivery, with their delivery pilots who were incapable of air combat maneuvering. There is an argument that quality should have been emphasized before quantity.